Note: Most browsers are incapable of printing this page properly.
To obtain a high-quality, printable version of the entire Voter Information Guide and Ballot Pamphlet, please see Download Instructions.

PROPOSITION

SUMMARY

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

ARGUMENTS

TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

YES

NO

PRO

CON

FOR

AGAINST

219

BALLOT MEASURES.APPLICATION.

LegislativeConstitutionalAmendment

Put on the Ballot bythe Legislature

219 - Summary

Requires statewide/local ballot measureto apply in all parts of jurisdiction,regardless of how parts of jurisdictionvoted. Prohibits alternative versions ofa measure from becoming law basedupon specified vote percentage. FiscalImpact: The number of measures thisproposition would affect in the future,and the resulting fiscal impact, cannotbe estimated.

219 - Yes

A YES vote on this measuremeans: State and local ballotmeasures would apply in thesame way in all parts of thejurisdiction (that is, the state ora local government) affected bythe measure, regardless of howany individual part of thatjurisdiction voted. In addition,ballot measures could notcontain different provisions thatwould be enacted depending onthe percentage of votes cast infavor of the measure.

219 - No

A NO vote on this measuremeans: Current lawsaffecting ballot measureswould not be changed.

219 - Pro

Several recent state and local ballotmeasures contained blackmailinglanguage designed to force voters intosupporting the ballot measure--or facehaving the ballot measurediscriminatorily and selectively appliedto their local jurisdiction's disadvantagefollowing the election. Proposition 219would prohibit this extortion and protectthe initiative process' integrity.

220

COURTS. SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPALCOURTCONSOLIDATION.

LegislativeConstitutionalAmendment

Put on the Ballot bythe Legislature

220 - Summary

Provides for consolidation of superiorand municipal courts in county uponapproval by majority of county'ssuperior and municipal court judges.Makes related changes to court system.Fiscal Impact: Potential annual netsavings to the state, in the range ofmillions to tens of millions of dollars inthe long term, to the extent that mostsuperior and municipal courtsconsolidate.

220 - Yes

A YES vote on this measuremeans: Superior and municipalcourts within a county couldconsolidate into a singlesuperior court if approved by amajority of superior courtjudges and a majority ofmunicipal court judges in thecounty.

220 - No

A NO vote on this measuremeans: Superior andmunicipal courts wouldremain separate.

220 - Pro

Yes on Proposition 220 will improve ourcourts, save money and streamlinejustice. It is estimated that Proposition220 could save $23,000,000 in taxpayerdollars. Thousands of prosecutors,judges, taxpayer advocates, localgovernments and law enforcementgroups urge you to vote YES onProposition 220.

A YES vote on this measuremeans: Persons convicted ofmurder would no longer beeligible to receive credits forgood conduct or participation inwork or education programsthat reduce the time they muststay in prison. Also, a lawenacted last year by theLegislature and Governorestablishing a penalty of lifeimprisonment withoutpossibility of parole for thesecond degree murder of apeace officer under certaincircumstances would bereplaced by a virtually identicallaw enacted by the voters.

222 - No

A NO vote on this measuremeans: Most personsconvicted of murder wouldcontinue to be eligible forcredits that reduce thetime they stay in prison.Also, a law enacted lastyear by the Legislatureand Governor establishinga penalty of lifeimprisonment withoutpossibility of parole for thesecond degree murder of apeace officer under certaincircumstances would notbe replaced by one enactedby the voters.

222 - Pro

NOT PROVIDED

222 - Con

NOT PROVIDED

222 - For

NOT PROVIDED

222 - Against

NOT PROVIDED

223

SCHOOLSSPENDINGLIMITS ONADMINISTRATION.

LegislativeConstitutionalAmendment

Put on the Ballot byPetition Signatures

223 - Summary

Prohibits school districts from spendingmore than five percent of funds from allsources for administrative costs.Authorizes fines for failure to comply.Fiscal Impact: Requires school districtsto reduce administrative costs (asdefined by the measure) by up to $700million. To comply with thisrequirement, districts could moreaccurately account for administrativecosts, move operations from centrallocations to school sites, and reduceadministrative spending.

223 - Yes

A YES vote on this measuremeans: School districts couldspend no more than 5 percenton central administrative costs.The remaining money, at least95 percent of total funds, wouldhave to be spent on directservices to students, school siteemployees, and school facilities.

223 - No

A NO vote on this measuremeans: School districtswould continue to decidewhat portion of theirbudgets is spent on centraladministration and directservices.

223 - Pro

Our tax dollars must be spent at ourschools where our children are educated,not on administrators at central offices.Currently, non-school site administrationaverages 9% statewide, with somedistricts spending as much as 20%. Thenational average is 4.8%. Proposition 223puts the money where the kids are!

225

LIMITINGCONGRESSIONALTERMS.

Proposed U.S.ConstitutionalAmendment

Initiative Statute

Put on the Ballot byPetition Signatures

225 - Summary

Establishes as California's officialposition that state and federallegislators support U.S. Constitutionalamendment establishing Congressionalterm limits and requires them to usetheir powers to enact Congressionalterm limits. Fiscal Impact: Relativelyminor costs to the state and to counties.

225 - Yes

A YES vote on this measuremeans: Members of theCalifornia Legislature andMembers of Congress fromCalifornia would be instructedto vote for passage of anamendment to the UnitedStates Constitution to limitUnited States Senators to nomore than two terms (12 years)and United StatesRepresentatives to no morethan three terms (6 years). Ifany candidate for either houseof the Legislature or forCongress does not support theproposed amendment, the ballotwould indicate that fact.

225 - No

A NO vote on this measuremeans: Members of theCalifornia Legislature andMembers of Congress fromCalifornia would not bedirected to support termlimits for Members ofCongress.

225 - Pro

NOT PROVIDED

225 - Con

Term Limits are pure folly, passedfor greedy Corporations at ourexpense. With term limits,Corporations can buy Congress.Corporations will set Con-gressional spending priorities.Resist the urge to use term limitsto "throw the bums out." Thisproposition replaces Congress withpowerful, hidden self-interestgroups we do not elect.

226

POLITICALCONTRIBUTIONSBY EMPLOYEES,UNION MEMBERS,FOREIGNENTITIES.

Initiative Statute

Put on the Ballot byPetition Signatures

226 - Summary

Requires employee's or union member'spermission to withhold wages or uniondues for political contributions.Prohibits foreign contributions to stateand local candidates. Fiscal Impact:Unknown, probably not major, stateenforcement costs. Additional statecosts (up to $2 million annually,one-time costs of $2 million to $5million), offset by fees, and unknownlocal government costs foradministrative activities, probablyoffset by fees.

226 - Yes

A YES vote on this measuremeans: Employers would haveto obtain an annualauthorization from employeesin order to deduct money fromwages that will be used byrecipient organizations forpolitical campaign activities.Labor unions would have toobtain annual authorizationfrom members in order to usedues and fees for politicalcampaign activities. Understate law, no one could solicit oraccept a political campaigncontribution for a candidatefrom a foreign national.

226 - No

A NO vote on this measuremeans: Employers wouldnot have to obtain annualauthorization fromemployees in order todeduct money from wagesthat will be used byrecipient organizations forpolitical campaignactivities. Union dues andfees could be used forpolitical campaignactivities without theannual authorization ofthe members. There wouldbe no separate state lawban on foreigncontributions tocandidates, and only thecurrent federal law ban.

226 - Pro

Proposition 226 stops unions andemployers from taking money frommembers or employees paychecks forpolitical purposes without their priorconsent, and prohibits contributions tostate and local candidates from foreignnationals and foreign corporations. Unionmembers deserve the same politicalfreedom of choice as every otherCalifornian.

227

ENGLISHLANGUAGE INPUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Initiative Statute

Put on the Ballot byPetition Signatures

227 - Summary

Requires all public school instruction bein English, unless parents requestotherwise and show certaincircumstances. Provides short-termEnglish immersion programs forchildren learning English. Fundscommunity English instruction. FiscalImpact: Impacts on individual schooldistricts would depend on how schools,parents, and the state respond to theproposition's changes. These impactscould vary significantly by district.Total state spending on education,however, probably would not change.

227 - Yes

A YES vote on this measuremeans: Students with limitedEnglish ability will be taught inspecial classes in which theteacher speaks English nearlyall of the time. After about oneyear in these special classes,most students will be moved toregular classes.

227 - No

A NO vote on this measuremeans: Schools will teachstudents with limitedEnglish ability in a varietyof ways. Some studentswill be in classes in whichthe teacher speaks theirhome language some ornearly all of the time.Students might stay inthese classes for severalyears before moving toregular classes.

227 - Pro

Hundreds of thousands of Californiaschoolchildren are forced intoSpanish-only bilingual education classesand not taught English. Proposition 227ensures that all children are taught toread English, write English, and speakEnglish as soon as they start school, withnon-fluent students placed in intensiveshort-term English immersion classes.

227 - Con

Several years ago, the 1970's lawmandating bilingual education inCalifornia expired. Since then localschool districts have beendeveloping and using differentprograms to teach childrenEnglish. Proposition 227 outlawsthe best local programs andimposes one state mandate thathas never been tested. CaliforniaPTA opposes Proposition 227.